For some, that question is enough to stop them believing anything other than the official conspiracy theory or ‘official narrative’ as others may phrase it.

But lets be frank, it is a thoroughly stupid stance to take.

1) That someone involved in one of the most significant world shaking event would, having initially been a willing participant, simply MUST admit to the fact later. This ‘opening’ condition alone, is likely to result in the majority of participants having a very strong reason to keep it secret.

2) Given the likely real suspects behind 9/11 and the dirty things they get up to, it is more than reasonable to believe any potential squealer would face execution with a similar threat facing their families.

3) Imagine some false-flag (FF) has occurred and a squealer came forth 7 years alter. From the time the event happened up until the ‘confession’ the false flag was still a false-flag. It does not magically become a FF simply when someone admits to it.

4) Even if a confession does come forth, the following powerful filters need to be successfully penetrated; The ‘confession’ needs
a) mass exposure
b) mass communication (not necessarily the same as a)
c) mass acceptance.
These filters even when overcome still don’t guarantee people will abandon the adopted mental barrier heading this post.

5) Not all FF’s will have a whistle-blower. To believe that to date, the FF’s and black-ops that have been exposed are the only FF / black-ops that have ever occurred and that no deadly secret has ever been taken to the grave is simply the philosophical stance of cretin.

The weight of ALL evidence towards official forces being involved in 9-11 is simply overwhelming relative to the ‘official conspiracy story’, and in my opinion is is well beyond all reasonable doubt.

Why should justice and punitive action NOT be taken just because of the idiots who adopt such pathetic stances as “If 9/11 was a false flag operation, why hasn’t anyone squealed?” The only answer to that is surely this: Because in reality, possibly deep in their conscious, they prefer and benefit from the consequences that followed the FF rather than the consequences of having true justice be served and all ramifications from that.

The BBC newz (newz, ‘cos it certainty ain’t news) and current department really turns my stomach. Medialens [1, 2, 3] amongst others has consistently uncovered the filth (my words, not their) that gets passed off as journalism, and not only that, but insanely the worlds best journalism – so they would have us believe]. Far from the pinnacle of journalism, it’s the pinnacle of propaganda and downright lies.

BBC Covers Up War Crimes – Misleads Over Syrian Security Operations.by Tony CartalucciUpdate: Indeed BBC did not see “MIGs” bombing Aleppo, though it appears they weren’t even anti-tank SU-25’s but rather training aircraft. Aero L-39 Albatros are also not even “Russian-made” as the BBC claimed. The article below has been amended to reflect this information. Read here for more.

July 25, 2012 – When big lies must be told, BBC is there. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya and now Syria, BBC has paved the way for Western disinformation meant to mange public perception around a war the public would otherwise never support or tolerate.

Now, as NATO’s Al Qaeda mercenaries operating under the banner of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” flow over the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt to overrun the city of Aleppo, BBC is there, attempting to manipulate the public’s perception as the conflict unfolds.

BBC’s Ian Pannell admits he rode with a convoy of milatnt fighters into Aleppo at night. He claims many are desperate for the FSA to succeed, “clamoring for freedom denied by their president,” but concedes many others fear an “Islamic takeover” and sectarian “division and bloodshed.” The latter of course, is self-evident, while the former is the repeated, unfounded mantra of the Western media used to cover up the latter.

Pannell poses amongst staged settings, claiming a single burning tire equates to a barricade set up by the militants (see more on the use of burning tires as propaganda here and here). He concedes that militants are taking to the rooftops with sniper rifles in the districts they claim they control – begging one to wonder where else terrorist snipers have been, and how many “sniper” deaths have been mistakenly blamed on the government.

Covering Up FSA War Crimes

Pannell then attempts to cover up serious war crimes committed by the FSA militants he is traveling with, claiming that men the FSA arbitrarily rounded up while “seeking revenge” were “suspected Shabiha,” harking back to Libya’s NATO-backed terrorist death squads rounding up and killing Libya’s black communities in orgies of sectarian genocide – which outlets like the BBC defended as simply rebels targeting “suspected African mercenaries.” Pannell papers over what he just reported with the unqualified claim that there is “little justice” on either side. What became of the FSA’s victims is not revealed.

Image: From BBC’s Ian Pannell – young men “suspected” of being “Shabiha” are rounded up as the FSA “seeks revenge.” BBC fails categorically to explain how NATO-backed terrorists can “liberate” a city that is admittedly pro-government – but it appears it will be done through terrorism, brutality, mass murder, and intimidation.

….

BBC reporter Ian Pannell’s failure to report on the war crimes he admitted witnessing, smacks of endorsement and complicity – an attempt to preserve the romanticism the West has desperately tried to associate with their FSA death squads. Pannell’s report also confirms earlier descriptions of widespread atrocities committed by the so-called “Free Syrian Army.”

In Libya, when the government of Muammar Qaddafi collapsed, and as Libyan terrorists overran the last of the nation’s security forces, entire cities of Libya’s blacks were overrun, their populations either mass-murdered, imprisoned, or forced to flee to refugee camps. These are people who had lived in Libya for generations. A similar fate awaits Syrians should NATO prevail.

BBC Confirms Syrian Army Use of Heavy Weapons ARE Proportional to FSA Threats

Pannell’s propaganda in Aleppo continues, where he admits FSA militants possess tanks they allegedly “captured” from the Syrian military, but then, showing video of what is either an anti-tank SU-25 aircraft or an Aero L-39 Albatros training jet, rolling in with machine guns, claims it marks a “dramatic escalation” and a sign of “desperation.”

Image: From BBC’s Ian Pannell -FSA tanks are positioned in or around Aleppo, according to BBC. The myth that NATO-backed militants are “lightly armed” is unraveling as they attempt to take on large cities flush with cameras and media from both sides. Eager propagandists attempting to portray victories have more than once shown “captured tanks” in the hands of militants. Heavy militant weapons beget heavy government weapons.

….

In reality the Syrian army is using force directly proportional to the threats NATO-backed militants have presented. Tanks and heavy weapons mounted on trucks, also featured in the BBC report, are legitimate targets for government heavy weapons. The precision an SU-25 lends the battlefield versus heavy artillery bombardments when neutralizing FSA heavy weapons is the only conceivable way to minimize civilian casualties.

Images: (Top) From BBC’s Ian Pannell – BBC and other Western media outlets have claimed “MIGs” are bombing Aleppo’s civilian populations. This all based on a single “tweet” made by BBC’s Ian Pannell. Pannell now reports this video depicts what he saw – which in reality is either an anti-tank SU-25 or Aero L-39 deploying machine guns, not bombs, versus what Pannell already admits are FSA heavy weapons, not civilian populations. (Bottom) Several orthographic views of the SU-25 and Aero L-39 for comparison.

….

And as the Western media is so found of reminding its viewers, Aleppo is decidedly pro-government, and pro-President Bashar al-Assad. Therefore to indiscriminately use disproportionate force serves no purpose for the Syrian government, who has gone through extraordinary lengths and placed its soldiers at great risk to minimize damage to the city and its inhabitants – a city and population that serves both an important role economically and culturally for all Syrian people.

Remember Fallujah, Iraq

A government is put in a difficult position when armed gangs enter a city “seeking revenge” as BBC’s Ian Pannell puts it, when these gangs have trucks mounted with heavy weapons as well as tanks in their possession. For the West, to berate the Syrian government and portray its security operations as unmitigated “brutality” is disingenuous at best, especially considering the militants are there solely because of years of financial, military, and political support from the US, Israel, and the Gulf State despots.

Image: Western hypocrisy – Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 was bombarded by artillery and airstrikes for weeks leading up to the final invasion. When over 10,000 troops entered the city, they were accompanied by tanks, and supported by heavy artillery and airstrikes. When the West is subjugating others, heavy weapons seems acceptable – but not when another nation attempts to defend itself from admittedly Western-backed terrorists.

The Battle of Fullujah is considered a notch in the belt of Western military prowess, while the West condemns Syria’s attempts to defend one of its most important cities from foreign-subversion and destruction. While NATO believes it can still win the geopolitical battle it is waging against the Syrian people, it has already long lost the battle for moral superiority.

Frank in my eyes, is the kind of creature I really don’t like. I have zero confidence that he isn’t part of a British establishment cum ‘intelligence’ [sic] ring placed in the media (like they so often are) just to spread propaganda.

Well here, the BBC allows its “security” correspondent (pfffff!) to trot out his own little conspiracy theory, that the Syrian regime is engaging in false flag operations against itself. The BBC allows this because it fits in nicely with whitey is mighty and white-knightly while darky is naughty and dark-knightly. Where’s your proof Pffffrank?

The weird Lyse Doucet plays the game too, reporting – without challenge:“The opposition says the attacks were carried out by the government itself to discredit rebel forces.”

Come on Frank, why not talk about 9-11 then you creep.

By the way, do you still keep miniature Qur’ans in your ass pocket?

Please note: It is actually entirely possible that Frank is actually onto something. I have no love for the Syrian tyranny, like many so called “Muslim” governments. Who seem to think torture, oppression and idol worship of the countries leader is one of the pillars of Islam. Well, maybe that’s a bit harsh. They are after all largely propped up by their pro-Zionist western masters, so what do you expect. However, the bare faced cheek of the BBC to only channel certain conspiracy theories is just vile.

And actually, Frank would know a thing or two about false flags, wouldn’t ya Frankie.

The sexual pressure has gotten too much. It’s been too long since Zionist Israyhellis last masturbated over the bodies of dead Palestinians. So to get their sexual catharsis, they’re once again killing more kids and innocent adults whose crime has been to be born on land the Ziofreaks decided to steal. All fully supported by fellow necrophiliacs Obama and Cameron, like all US and UK ‘leaders’ before them.

And of course the shitty BBC/BBZ is talking about it as there are no instigators and no victims – other than the poor Israyhellis of course. As usual when the BBZ can be bothered to talk about the killing of a Palestinian, then that Palestinian is ‘Militant’ as though the accused was on some operation in progress with just seconds left before Israyhell came to a fiery end. The BBZ is a real nasty piece of work – a perfect companion to lick the hand of who it loyally serves. It simply cannot and will not report things as they are regarding to the genocide against the Palestinians. It always counters the MASSIVE, instigation of force and bombs (supplied by US with full support of the UK) with some mysterious and totally inapplicable and sickly laughable notion of balance, reducing the eye for an eyelash to equality.

Just imagine them applying their Israyhelli methodology to Cambodia.

I hope and pray the BBZ’s lies and deceptions are easily sen through by the people, and I think they may well.

I seriously look forward to the day the BBC makes it’s last rotten broadcast.

Finally American (more accurately: ‘USan’) leadership that I don’t mind: The Occupy Wall St. protests. This weekend has seen a number of similar protests around the world.

No, I won’t attempt to smear them by posting a video of one of their activists reading out their manifesto or demands, after which the crowd, very likely for morale building / unity / solidarity reasons then go ahead and repeat, but I’m sure you can find plenty of places in the ‘alternative’ media/blogosphere that will.

John Pilger, my favourite Journalist, was talking at a demo in London the other day on the 10th Anniversary of the US/NATA global bomb fest, which has perhaps claimed 2,000,000 million innocent lives so far.

John said “Civil disobedience is the only way now”. John is wrong IF it doesn’t include public based austerity measures against the state which is screwing them over. For example:

a) Refusal to pay taxes

b) Refusing to keep their money in banks.

there are more, but those two are perhaps the most potent.

And the good news for a change is that there are reports of this very thing happening…

Below is a screenshot of Google search results for “bbc obama jobs plan”. As you can tell – and may well remember – the BBC reported this plan to much fanfare with bold headlines (like in a parallel kind of way its fear inducing reporting in 1990 when Saddam Hussein was tricked into invading Kuwait) almost as though the ‘jobs rescue’ had actually transpired.

I only just realised the plan seems to have failed having read this Bloomberg report about it. I thought to myself, how come I didn’t read it on the BBC? – Especially in light of the way it was hailed last month. It turns out the BBC have written an article about it but wth certainly none of the ‘Shock and Awe’ headlines they peddled out over a month ago. They haven’t ‘undone’ their promotion of this fiendish freak squatting in the house of freaks, known as the White House.

Apart from the Rubgy Union story, you can see the torrent of stories the BBC made.

No, this is NOT a case of media left wing / liberal bias. It’s a case of BBC WHITE POWER ELITE BIAS, which the ‘black’ feel-good figurehead known as Obama pulls off to a tea. The BBC always supports the filthy elite mobsters no matter that political party they are from.

Here’s to the continual decay and rot of the BBC.

–

–

Last thing, was this plan ever sincere? Was it planned to fail? Hummm…

Is Al Jazeera English (AJE) deliberately using the wording “pull” to normalise or numbify peoples minds against this ‘9-11 loaded’ word’? – i.e. the pull word used in the infamous Larry Silverstein interview in which he mentioned watching WTC7’s collapse?

The AJE article in question says “Israel pulls envoy after embassy attack “. Isn’t the usual way to report these things like this: ABC withdraws envoy/ambassador? Isn’t AJE’s title an unusual one? I think what AJE says is grammatically incorrect. The article was written by “Al Jazeera and sources ” – Well, at least the “Last Modified: 10 Sep 2011 07:45” version is.

A friend of mine said Silversteins famous “pull” comment was similarly grammatically incorrect either (in context of getting firemen out of WTC7)

WTC 7 – Pull It By Larry Silverstein

by the way, the alledged comment to firemen was challenged by a “We Are Change” activist:

Larry Silverstein no response to WTC 7 lies

“…the slang in those terms is related the a certain aspect of English, its an adjective. You do not say “pull it ” to bring out people”

If my friend is correct, it is even more pucluar that AJE are also doing it. So I’m even more suspicious of AJE. And dear AJE fans, don’t bother writing in to me to tell me how AJE is good on XYZ and tht reporter PQR is what a journalist should be. I’m NOT talking about individuals here, I’m taking about the whole ethos of AJ and AJE.

Well the mainstream media have done an absolutely pathetic job at bringing up many – or perhaps more accurately: ANY questionalbe points of the events of 9-11.

How far down the inescapable hole have we gone I wonder? Just what are we going to find at the very bottom of it I wonder.